The Court of Appeal has dismissed Kildare County Council’s appeal over a forecourt beside properties at Dara Court, Corban’s Lane, Naas, and affirmed the High Court orders. The Council had sought to establish that a public right of way existed over the disputed land before its compulsory purchase. The appeal judgment did not decide compensation for the acquired land.
The dispute arose from a compulsory purchase order for road improvements. The Council argued that public traffic had regularly crossed the forecourt, particularly after a footpath was built on the opposite side of Corban’s Lane in 1991 and traffic was pushed towards the properties. It also relied on claimed Council maintenance and repair work.
The defendant, Kieran Morrin, said the area remained part of his property and was used for parking by tenants and customers. He relied on the title documents, planning material and evidence of parking, maintenance, signage and complaints about works on the land. The High Court found that the owners had continued to exercise control over the forecourt and had not dedicated it as a public right of way.
In her judgment, Justice Faherty said there was regular two-way traffic on Corban’s Lane and accepted that vehicles were pushed towards the forecourt after the footpath was built. But traffic passing over the land, by itself, did not establish the owner’s intention to dedicate it to public use. The Council had to prove that intention, along with public use and acceptance.
The Court of Appeal found no basis to overturn the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. It noted that the defendant and witnesses described habitual parking on the forecourt, and that he had taken steps to control parking and objected to works he regarded as encroachments. The court also upheld the trial judge’s view that evidence of Council maintenance was limited: the Council produced two invoices for 2011 works, but no records showing maintenance or repair between 1991 and 2009 or 2010.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court orders affirmed. The Court’s preliminary view was that the defendant should receive his appeal costs. Either party could seek a different costs order within 21 days of electronic delivery; otherwise, the proposed order, including costs, would be perfected. The judgment does not determine the defendant’s compensation claim, which was for the property arbitrator.